so, I would likewise have minutely stated how the Patrons did then proceed to elect a new Professor for the Mathematical Chair, on the 12th of March, in consequence of a letter of resignation from Mr. Playfair, who had held the appointment jointly with Professor Adam Ferguson, and had been the sole acting Professor, in virtue of that appointment. In truth, they did then, as they conceived, complete that election; but afterwards saw, that, in point of form, a resignation by the Emeritus Professor under the former appointment was likewise requisite; and having received a letter of resignation from Professor Ferguson likewise, again elected Mr. Leslie de novo joint Professor with Mr. Ferguson on the 29th of March. Every part of this procedure was notorious, and stood engrossed in the records of the City; and I therefore inserted no more of it in my narrative than was relevant to the argument to follow. I now transcribe the procedure, as it will be found in the Record of the Council, in the volume commencing upon the 13th of February, 1805.

"The minute relative to the election of a Professor of Mathematics on the 12th of March 1805, commences thus: Compeared Dr. Henry Greive, one of the Ministers of the Old Church, and Dr. John Inglis, one of the Ministers of the Old Greyfriars Church, each of whom made a long speech relative to the election of a Professor of Mathematics, containing in substance what is contained in the paper after inserted. Thereafter Mr. Inglis read a paper, which he craved might be inserted in the minutes of Council, which was agreed to; and it is of the following tenor,' &c. &c.

"The Representation and Protest follow, as engrossed, and you will notice that the pamphlet which accuses you of misrepresentation, does explicitly state, at page 66, that the first and only scroll of the remonstrance was in consequence presented by the Committee, and as they were most readily allowed to have it afterwards copied under their own eye, they had no disposition to complain.'

"Immediately after the copy of the Representation and Protest, the same minute in the record proceeds:

A Member of Council asked, if, at the Meeting of the Ministers of Edinburgh, they had under their consideration a letter from Mr. John Leslie to the Reverend Dr. Andrew Hunter? and was answered by Dr. Greive, that they had, but that such letter did not any wise alter their opinion.* The Ministers having retired, a copy of Mr. Leslie's letter to the Dean of Guild was produced and read, of the following tenor.' This letter is then engrossed also. You will attend to what immediately follows the copy of this letter, in the record of the procedure on the 12th of March: all which, with the strong certificates produced to the

* I must entreat here the attention of my Readers to pp. 67, 68, 69, of the Examination of my Pamphlet. The following is a short extract from the passage which I refer to.

"If the reader has really felt with Mr. Stewart, and for Mr. Leslie, on account of the hardship he might have sustained, in consequence of no intimation being given that such a letter existed,' he will perhaps be equally relieved and surprised, upon being informed, that the letter actually was one of the subjects of conference between the Town Council and the Committee of Ministers at the Council Board. The written remonstrance was no sooner read, than the Lord Provost introduced the subject of the letter.

"If Mr. Stewart's curiosity next prompt him to inquire, whether this subject, if not so immediately introduced by the Lord Provost, would have occurred to any of the Committee of Ministers, he can have little ground to expect that his curiosity should be gratified; for the members of that Committee can scarce be supposed capable of saying what would or would not have occurred to them, if the conversation had taken a different turn."

To enable the reader to form a still more adequate judgment on this conference between the Committee of Ministers and the Magistrates of Edinburgh, on the subject of Mr. Leslie's letter to Dr. Hunter, it may be necessary to explain in what manner the existence of this letter came to be so early known to the Members of the Town Council. The truth is, that when Mr. Leslie communicated to me in the the morning of March 12, the letter which he had written to Dr. Hunter, and when I found that this gentleman (who was prevented by indisposition from attending in person the meeting of his Brethren) had transmitted it under cover to Dr. Greive, it occurred to me, as a precaution that might not be altogether useless to Mr. Leslie, to send a copy to one of his friends in the Magistracy; and I accordingly urged him to do so without a moment's delay. The circumstances of the conference which took place in the Council Chamber about two hours afterwards, sufficiently confirmed my suspicions that there was at least a possibility, that the original might not reach the Patrons of the University through the medium of Dr. Greive.

In case this Postscript should fall into the hands of any person who has not read Mr. Leslie's letter to Dr. Hunter, I shall take this opportunity of referring him to page 36 of my Short Statement, 3d edition. After having perused the letter, I beg leave to recommend to his serious consideration the following sentences from the late publication of the Ministers of Edinburgh.

"It is well known that, from the moment of receiving the letter, they were of one mind in considering it as, in some respects, an aggravation of his original offence. And, though the charge of suppressing it, or not discussing its merits in the written remonstrance, might be pretty satisfactorily obviated by reminding the reader, that not more than an hour and a half elapsed, from the time when the letter was received, till the remonstrance was actually presented, the Ministers have too much sense of honor to plead this circumstance as an apology for not having done-what would never have occurred to them to be necessary as an act of justice to Mr. Leslie."

Council of the abilities and good character of Mr. Leslie, being maturely considered, they resolved immediately to proceed to the election of a Professor of Mathematics, in the room of Mr. Playfair, Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh; and there was produced and read a letter from Mr. John Playfair, Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, containing a resignation of the office of joint Professor of Mathematics, along with Professor Ferguson, which is, of the following tenor.' "Having been appointed by you Professor of Natural Philosophy in the College of Edinburgh, I do resign into your hands my office of Professor of Mathematics in the said College, which I held jointly with Professor Adam Ferguson; and I am," &c.

"Thereafter the Magistrates and Council, considering that their predecessors in office, by their Act of Council, dated the 18th May, 1785, did elect, nominate, and appoint, Mr. Adam Ferguson and Mr. John Playfair, jointly, and the longest liver of them, to be Professors of Mathematics in the University of Edinburgh, and that ad vitam aut culpam, giving, granting, and disponing to them, and to the survivor of them, during their or his enjoying the said office, the salary annexed thereto,' &c. &c.

* * * * *

"And considering that the office of joint Professor of Mathematics is now vacant by the resignation of Professor Playfair, and that it is expedient to supply the vacancy with a well-qualified person; and being fully satisfied with the abilities and good qualifications of Mr. John Leslie, author of "An Experimental Inquiry into the Nature and Propagation of Heat," and other publications, the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Council, Ordinary and Extraordinary, nemine contradicente, elected, nominated, and appointed him joint Professor of Mathematics, along with Professor Ferguson, ad vitam aut culpam, during the life of Professor Playfair, in the room of, and upon the same terms and conditions, and in the same way and manner as enjoyed by the said Professor Playfair, with the benefit of survivorship, in the event of Professor Ferguson's predeceasing Professor John Playfair.'

"So thoroughly did the Patrons regard the election as then completed, that, on the 20th of the same month, in a minute relative to the engrossing the evidence which the Council possessed of Mr. Leslie's talents, scientific knowledge, moral character, and principles, and his qualifications for the office of Professor of Mathematics,' (which is there appointed to be put upon record, in justice to the character of Professor Leslie, as well as in justice to the unbiassed conduct of the Council,') they begin with mentioning the attack in the Representation and Protest upon record, on the character of Mr. Leslie, whom the Council had elected joint Professor of Mathematics, along with Professor Ferguson.' And to the close of this minute, of the 20th March, the language of the Record assumes the election to have been made upon the 12th of that month.

"On the 29th of March, the error, in point of form of proceeding to a new election, upon the resignation of the acting Professor only, is corrected by another minute in the Record, which states, that the Meeting 'read a letter from Professor Adam Ferguson, resigning his office of joint Professor of Mathematics in the University of Edinburgh, which was accepted of; and in terms thereof, and a former resignation by Professor Playfair, declared the said office vacant. And thereafter, the Council considering, that the office of Professor of Mathematics in the University of this City is at present vacant, by the resignation of the saids Professor Adam Ferguson and Professor John Playfair, late Professors thereof; and that it is incumbent on the Council, as patrons of the University, to supply the vacancy with a well-qualified person or persons; and being fully satisfied with the abilities and good qualifications of the said Professor Adam Ferguson, and of Mr. John Leslie, author of An Experimental Inquiry into the Nature and Propagation of Heat,' and other publications, for discharging the duty of that important office; the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Council, with the Extraordinary Deacons, unanimously elected, nominated, and appointed the saids Professor Adam Ferguson and Mr. John Leslie jointly, and the longest liver of

them, to be Professors of Mathematics in the University of Edinburgh, and that ad vitam aut culpam.'

"When I drew my paper originally in the form of Answers to the Bill of Suspension, which were lodged on the 27th of April, I had not the record before me; and the only error which appears to have existed in my information, upon a comparison of the statements in it with the record, consists in my having said, that the Lord Provost desired the letter of Mr. Leslie to Dr. Hunter to be read in the course of the procedure on the 12th of March.

"It appears, on the contrary, from the record, that the Members of the Committee of Ministers were applied to for information with respect to this letter. Had the record been before me when I wrote the paper, I would have so stated the fact. I cannot now discover how I collected this part of my statement, and whether from verbal or written communications to me, as I have not preserved any notes used in the composition of it.

"I must regret that so much trouble should have been given, to explain to the world the grounds of a statement in point of fact, as to which it is beyond ine reach of my imagination to conjecture how there should ever have been a misconception in the mind of any party interested in the procedure, and attending to it when it took place. The Representation and Protest of the Committee of the Ministers of Edinburgh, you have seen, was laid before the Council, and enforced by speeches, when they actually were met to proceed to the election of the 12th March. An election then took place. But because an additional resignation was found requisite in point of form, to render the new appointment regular, this election was repeated on the 29th of March, when that defect of form was supplied. Consequently, the statement of my paper, which you have adopted as to the procedure on the 12th of March, was perfectly correct; and there can be no difficulty in judging whether the after procedure on the 29th of that month really was inconsistent with that statement.